it most certainly did kill Chivalry. Don't get me wrong sex is great but it's all that's left. I can't go out with my friends and have lethal sword duels.

Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit

At 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM, drafterman wrote:We should be thankful chivalry is dead.

Why?

It places women in a deliberate position of weakness to be protected by men. The underlying premise is that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves.

Chivalry compounds the issue by deliberately isolating women from the world under the guise of this protection, essentially imprisoning them in a gilded cage.

While certainly some people are in need of protection, to permanently classify a whole set of people as in perpetually weak, and focus solely on keeping them weak and dependent on external protection, is immoral.

At 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM, drafterman wrote:We should be thankful chivalry is dead.

Why?

It places women in a deliberate position of weakness to be protected by men. The underlying premise is that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves.

Chivalry compounds the issue by deliberately isolating women from the world under the guise of this protection, essentially imprisoning them in a gilded cage.

While certainly some people are in need of protection, to permanently classify a whole set of people as in perpetually weak, and focus solely on keeping them weak and dependent on external protection, is immoral.

At 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM, drafterman wrote:We should be thankful chivalry is dead.

Why?

It places women in a deliberate position of weakness to be protected by men. The underlying premise is that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves.

Chivalry compounds the issue by deliberately isolating women from the world under the guise of this protection, essentially imprisoning them in a gilded cage.

While certainly some people are in need of protection, to permanently classify a whole set of people as in perpetually weak, and focus solely on keeping them weak and dependent on external protection, is immoral.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 6/6/2012 8:14:06 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:Has feminism emasculated men or merely liberated women? Are we better off with feminism or without it? Does feminism breed misandry, or cure misogyny?

May the flame war begin.

First wave feminism was principally democratic in nature, and emphasized the equality of the sexes across a variety of areas (although primarily applied to political/legal equality). Second wave feminism (post Feminine Mystique) was a bit more problematic insomuch as that which followed Betty Friedan (although not necessarily Friedan herself) measured "womanhood" by comparing it to manhood. This had a variety of interesting societal implications, ranging from the increased prolificness of birth control use to the power suit. Third wave feminism is difficult to simplistically describe, because it exists in so many different varieties, but has nevertheless had significant impacts.

But to say that feminism killed chivalry? That's a bit too bold for me to be comfortable with insomuch as while the increasing relative equality between men and women has transpired, that in no way precludes a man from behaving chivalrously. Rather, feminism more or less opens the door for women to reciprocate in kind. I would say though that the gender role norms have changed, and in that sense have become less distinguishable then was perhaps once the case (men are increasingly told not to be masculine while women are told to be less petite), but ultimately I would argue that chivalry isn't dead. Less people act chivalrously, sure, but to accredit that to feminism? Difficult to say...

At 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM, drafterman wrote:We should be thankful chivalry is dead.

Why?

It places women in a deliberate position of weakness to be protected by men.

The Fool: The 'Chiverly" does this?

Chiverly began in warfare, from those who should mercy, and fairness, kind of a I can win and be honerable, was virtue of the times somewhat ethical sense of good will, which also lead to a masculine Ideal in respect and caring for woman. In servatude. Feminism has destroyed, chivarly so bad to the point, that something Good, as been manipulate to be thought of as evil. To add the delibarate personification of being evil by virtue of maleness.

The underlying premise is that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves.

The Fool: Really the underlying underlying premise. Pls demonstrate that premise, and its conclusion.

Chivalry compounds the issue by deliberately isolating women from the world under the guise of this protection, essentially imprisoning them in a gilded cage.

The Fool: The "chivalry' itself, takes parts the "the makings of thing worse" and compiles them into a larger group, which is somehow, more then its parts. Which then that pile itself, has then on purpose, (the pile has intention) and of course the chivalrious person, act chivarlrious with the very purpose in mind, of trying to put them in a being in 'jail' like state. Really? Pls give the demonstration?

While certainly some people are in need of protection, to permanently classify a whole set of people as in perpetually weak, and focus solely on keeping them weak and dependent on external protection, is immoral.

The Fool: The "chivarly" does this? who or what is doing the classifying. I admit complete mis comprehension.

The Fool: anybody want to defend this statement, rationally?Challenge is open.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I think, in a lot of cases, it is the case that those who lament the loss of something that is lost mischaracterize the nature of that which is lost, and based on that mischaracterization, romanticizes the thing to the point of wanting to bring it back. Sure, it's human nature to reflect fondly on the past (that's a biological feature of human consciousness), but to forget the thing that was, and replace the fact of what was with a mischaracterization of what was, and then to use that mischaracterization as the basis for bringing it back (where the fabricated memory of the thing that was lost is the referent object to compare the present to) on the basis that the thing that was, was better than what presently is, is just absurd. Wether this applies to chivalry or not, naturally, is up for discussion, but that line of reasoning is especially common among those who long for a return to the past.

At 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM, drafterman wrote:We should be thankful chivalry is dead.

Why?

It places women in a deliberate position of weakness to be protected by men. The underlying premise is that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves.

Chivalry compounds the issue by deliberately isolating women from the world under the guise of this protection, essentially imprisoning them in a gilded cage.

While certainly some people are in need of protection, to permanently classify a whole set of people as in perpetually weak, and focus solely on keeping them weak and dependent on external protection, is immoral.

My friend, I can think of no simpler way to say this. You are an idiot.

Definition of Chivalry: The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 6/7/2012 1:26:21 AM, bluesteel wrote:Game of Thrones subverts chivalry with a female knight who kicks all the guys' @sses. It's awesome.

An amazing coincidence. I derived my previous post on Chivalry from the book "Philosophy and the Game of Thrones" which dedicates a whole chapter to the issue and specifically sites Brienne (and the derision she receives for bucking her socially imposed gender role).

At 6/7/2012 6:57:10 AM, MouthWash wrote:My friend, I can think of no simpler way to say this. You are an idiot.

Definition of Chivalry: The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders.

The Fool: well a simple refutation for a simple man. The Definition=/=reality.That is a version of the code, The reality was a gradual accent and decent and as you can see it doesn't even say Woman, but particluarly widows, children and elders.

Pls, COME ON!.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 6/7/2012 6:57:10 AM, MouthWash wrote:My friend, I can think of no simpler way to say this. You are an idiot.

Definition of Chivalry: The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders.

Not sure who you are replying to here. In any event:

1. If you are going to cut and paste from wikipedia, you should probably cite it.2. The main point of contention here is Chivalry vis-a-vis the protection and treatment of women. All women. Go back and read that wiki article and check out the third points of the codes of Chivalry it provides examples of further down.

Also take note of the inherent martial aspects of the code.

Simply put, Chivalry was martial enforcement of gender roles. And the medieval period isn't exactly known as being a bastion of gender equality.

Consider the difference between protecting someone that needs it, and classfying a group of people as inherently needing to be protected.

If someone is in a situation where they need to be protected, the best thing to do would be to empower them so that they can protect themselves. You know the adage: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. (Or, my favorite variant: give a man a fire, warm him for a night; set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life).

Chivalry is not about empowering people. It's about continuously protecting them which has the necessary consequence of them remaining weak. If a person never learns to protect or defend themselves, they will always require external protection. How is that a good thing? How is it good to be forced in a position where you have to depend on others for protection?

There are many people that are unavoidably in this position. For example, the physically and mentally infirm. They will always need protection and that situation is generally regarded as a bad thing. So why would you put an entire class of people in that situation deliberately, keeping them helpless just so you can tout how noble you are?

The whole depiction of it as men nobly protecting women against the harms of the world is little more than an excuse to continue to maintain a position of power over women. After all, men have the swords, women have the skirts.

Why not share the swords with the women? (They can keep the skirts, however).

I think, in a lot of cases, it is the case that those who lament the loss of something that is lost mischaracterize the nature of that which is lost, and based on that mischaracterization, romanticizes the thing to the point of wanting to bring it back. Sure, it's human nature to reflect fondly on the past (that's a biological feature of human consciousness), but to forget the thing that was, and replace the fact of what was with a mischaracterization of what was, and then to use that mischaracterization as the basis for bringing it back (where the fabricated memory of the thing that was lost is the referent object to compare the present to) on the basis that the thing that was, was better than what presently is, is just absurd. Wether this applies to chivalry or not, naturally, is up for discussion, but that line of reasoning is especially common among those who long for a return to the past.

The Fool: We have only been alive 20 some odd years. What passed are you taking about?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I think, in a lot of cases, it is the case that those who lament the loss of something that is lost mischaracterize the nature of that which is lost, and based on that mischaracterization, romanticizes the thing to the point of wanting to bring it back. Sure, it's human nature to reflect fondly on the past (that's a biological feature of human consciousness), but to forget the thing that was, and replace the fact of what was with a mischaracterization of what was, and then to use that mischaracterization as the basis for bringing it back (where the fabricated memory of the thing that was lost is the referent object to compare the present to) on the basis that the thing that was, was better than what presently is, is just absurd. Wether this applies to chivalry or not, naturally, is up for discussion, but that line of reasoning is especially common among those who long for a return to the past.

The Fool: We have only been alive 20 some odd years. What passed are you taking about?

ah he. I wasn't sure, for a second. I was giving you the benifit of the doubt. I was falling for it.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 6/7/2012 7:25:23 AM, drafterman wrote:The whole depiction of it as men nobly protecting women against the harms of the world is little more than an excuse to continue to maintain a position of power over women.

Yeah, I was listening until about this point. F*ck off, you crazy bastard.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 6/7/2012 7:25:23 AM, drafterman wrote:The whole depiction of it as men nobly protecting women against the harms of the world is little more than an excuse to continue to maintain a position of power over women.

Yeah, I was listening until about this point. F*ck off, you crazy bastard.

Listening? It's a shame you weren't reading. You might have benefited.